Another Virginia Tech Shooting

[JimC]

Well, to a large extent I agree with Mr Jonno. I have spent 58 years in Australia without a single need to defend myself, except for the occasional schoolyard tussle, and that would be the experience of most people, give or take the odd bout of pub fisticuffs. As I've said before, I'm certainly not anti-gun in general, in terms of sensible hunting and target shooting, but just glad that I live in a society without the "you need a hand-gun for self-defence" mentality.

[Pappa]

police officers, who have no obligation or duty to protect you in the first place.

You dispute this? You might want to read this article from the New York Times:

Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone

By LINDA GREENHOUSE
Published: June 28, 2005

WASHINGTON, June 27 - The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.

The decision, with an opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia and dissents from Justices John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, overturned a ruling by a federal appeals court in Colorado. The appeals court had permitted a lawsuit to proceed against a Colorado town, Castle Rock, for the failure of the police to respond to a woman's pleas for help after her estranged husband violated a protective order by kidnapping their three young daughters, whom he eventually killed.

This case reaffirms about 10 other appeals and Supreme Court rulings saying the same thing: The police DO NOT have a legal duty to protect you. They can stand there and watch you be beaten to death and not do anything about it and your heirs will have no legal recourse against them.

Seth, could you explain some of the background/rationale behind the Supreme Court rulings? I'm trying to get my head round the reasons and ramifications of it all.

[Seth]

police officers, who have no obligation or duty to protect you in the first place.

You dispute this? You might want to read this article from the New York Times:

Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone

By LINDA GREENHOUSE
Published: June 28, 2005

WASHINGTON, June 27 - The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.

The decision, with an opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia and dissents from Justices John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, overturned a ruling by a federal appeals court in Colorado. The appeals court had permitted a lawsuit to proceed against a Colorado town, Castle Rock, for the failure of the police to respond to a woman's pleas for help after her estranged husband violated a protective order by kidnapping their three young daughters, whom he eventually killed.

This case reaffirms about 10 other appeals and Supreme Court rulings saying the same thing: The police DO NOT have a legal duty to protect you. They can stand there and watch you be beaten to death and not do anything about it and your heirs will have no legal recourse against them.

Seth, could you explain some of the background/rationale behind the Supreme Court rulings? I'm trying to get my head round the reasons and ramifications of it all.

Very quickly (I'll expand later perhaps) the Court reasoned that the duty of the police is to the public, generally, and not to any specific individual in any particular circumstance. The Court saw a real problem with the notion that the police, and not the individual, had the duty to defend the individual against crime. They felt, and were justified in doing so, that not only does this place an unreasonable burden on the police, who would then have the obligation of putting themselves (as individuals) at risk of death or injury or suffer legal consequences, which conflicts with the general theory that each individual is responsible for his or her own safety, and that others cannot be REQUIRED to come to the aid of someone in need or danger if doing so puts them at risk of death or injury.

This would cause the government to force people to assume risks that they may not be willing to assume, and this applies just as much to police officers, who have a right to go home healthy at the end of their shift, as it does to anyone else.

The Court was also concerned that if the police have the duty to intervene and protect others, this might lead to a police state where the police, quite rationally, would impose rules and constraints on individual liberty in the interests of protecting THE POLICE. This is seen in places like Detroit and Chicago, where the police chiefs rail against citizens having guns because, they allege, if they do, police officers will be at greater risk of being shot. While this may be true, because police have no duty to intervene if their safety is at risk, their assuming the job of being a police officer constitutes a voluntary act, which should deny the police the power to infringe on the rights of citizens in the interests of police safety. This helps to prevent a state where everything that is not expressly permitted is forbidden, and produces a society in which everything that is not explicitly forbidden is permitted.

[JacksSmirkingRevenge]

Interesting. But I'm assuming that police officers over there swear some sort of oath to protect the public and therefore wouldn't inaction by a police officer put them in breach of that oath? - I'm thinking that it would over here in England:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_oath

English
“ I, ... of ... do solemnly and sincerely declare and affirm that I will well and truly serve the Queen in the office of constable, with fairness, integrity, diligence and impartiality, upholding fundamental human rights and according equal respect to all people; and that I will, to the best of my power, cause the peace to be kept and preserved and prevent all offences against people and property; and that while I continue to hold the said office I will to the best of my skill and knowledge discharge all the duties thereof faithfully according to law. ”

...Or am I being naive there?

[JimC]

It seems absurd to me. Surely there is a duty to at least make a reasonable effort to protect the lives of others. Expressed in that way, it would not require police to act in a totally self-sacrificing or suicidal way, but it would also mean they could be charged with dereliction of duty if they sat idly in a patrol car watching someone get beaten to death...

That is the way I would expect it to go in a civilised country, at least. Perhaps the US court has decided that such membership no longer applies...

[MrJonno]

The police obviously can't guarantee the safety of every citizen at every moment but they are expected to try. They just don't get sued if they fail.

Bit like a doctor isnt duty bound to cure you of illness but he is expected to give it a go

[Seth]

Interesting. But I'm assuming that police officers over there swear some sort of oath to protect the public and therefore wouldn't inaction by a police officer put them in breach of that oath? - I'm thinking that it would over here in England:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_oath

English
“ I, ... of ... do solemnly and sincerely declare and affirm that I will well and truly serve the Queen in the office of constable, with fairness, integrity, diligence and impartiality, upholding fundamental human rights and according equal respect to all people; and that I will, to the best of my power, cause the peace to be kept and preserved and prevent all offences against people and property; and that while I continue to hold the said office I will to the best of my skill and knowledge discharge all the duties thereof faithfully according to law. ”

...Or am I being naive there?

You're being naive. Yes, it probably would, and in many, indeed most cases the police will knowingly place themselves at risk to save others. I do NOT mean to imply that the police are cowards, by any stretch of the imagination. However, when discussing who it is that is responsible for providing for your individual safety, it's important to note that the police have no LEGAL obligation to do so, and sometimes don't, if there is little chance of success. One of the things that they teach in the Academy is how to deal with the internal stress of not being able to protect or save someone. They tell you to remember that while it's sad if someone dies, you have to always keep in mind the fact that YOU did not put them in that situation, and that all you're trying to do is help, so you bear no moral or ethical burden if your attempts fail, or if you decline to sacrifice your own life uselessly in a hopeless situation.

And in most departments, standing by watching someone being attacked would get the officer fired or suspended, and would likely bring much opprobrium upon him or her by his fellow officers, but at the same time, most police officers understand that there is no requirement that they throw away their lives in a display of bravado.

Indeed, in some situations it used to be that cops were expressly ordered NOT to take immediate action and to wait for the trained and equipped tactical teams. Specifically, in hostage situations like the Columbine shootings. The primary reason that so many kids were killed is that the police were operating under training and regulations that ordered them to establish a perimeter and wait for hostage negotiators and SWAT teams. But this training was deficient when faced with an "active shooter," which was what was happening at Columbine, and in the Norway incident. The procedures failed, so after Columbine they were changed, literally nationwide, and "active shooter" protocols were developed and all departments now have policies that call for immediate "ad hoc" tactical team response by the first responding officers so that they get in the building and engage the shooter, to give others time to escape.

I saw a great ad for body armor in a gun magazine yesterday, it shows a woman wearing a minimal front-and-back carrier that has a holster for her pistol and magazine pouches on it. She's in the dark in her bedroom holding her handgun with tactical light at the ready. The tagline for the ad is "When seconds count, help is only minutes away."

Brilliant marketing, and absolutely correct.

The thing about needing a gun is that if you never need one, no harm is done by carrying one (like I've been doing for a quarter-century), but if and when you need one, nothing else will do the job as well. And when you do need one, you don't have six minutes to wait for the police. You don't have sixty seconds. You're going to be lucky if you have six seconds. So, if you don't have one when you need one, you're just completely screwed.

[Seth]

It seems absurd to me. Surely there is a duty to at least make a reasonable effort to protect the lives of others. Expressed in that way, it would not require police to act in a totally self-sacrificing or suicidal way, but it would also mean they could be charged with dereliction of duty if they sat idly in a patrol car watching someone get beaten to death...

That is the way I would expect it to go in a civilised country, at least. Perhaps the US court has decided that such membership no longer applies...

You would be wrong. I seriously doubt there is a legally-enforceable duty on any cop anywhere in the world, but I certainly could be wrong.

Ethically speaking, however, why would there be a legal burden on a police officer when the officer is entirely not responsible for the danger that you are in, particularly when you yourself are morally and ethically responsible for your own safety? In my view it's immoral and unethical NOT to provide for your own safety, because in doing so you are shifting the burden of protecting you to others, who may not be willing to die or risk their safety for you. What is your ethical argument in support of a claim that some other person, including the police, is ethically or morally responsible for putting themselves at risk to save you?

The ONLY circumstance where I can see such a duty is the duty of a parent towards a child, and the obedience of a soldier to lawful orders. Every other instance of another person taking on the task of protecting another is an act of pure altruism and charity and cannot be demanded by anyone as of a right.

[Azathoth]

So what do they get paid so much for again if they are under no obligation to endanger themselves to uphold the law?

[Geoff]

Y

And in most departments, standing by watching someone being attacked would get the officer fired or suspended, and would likely bring much opprobrium upon him or her by his fellow officers, but at the same time, most police officers understand that there is no requirement that they throw away their lives in a display of bravado.

That wasn't the issue in the case you reported, though, Seth, which was the kidnapping of three children by a lone man. As I read it, the Supreme Court aren't using danger to the police as a reason for their inaction, but simply what they call "police discretion regarding mandatory arrest statutes". I personally find the dissenting opinions of Justices Stevens and Ginsburg more soundly based, and I wouldn't like to live in a society where such a crime was essentially ignored until too late.

[JacksSmirkingRevenge]

Are sworn oaths not legally binding? - I thought they were.

[Pappa]

Very quickly (I'll expand later perhaps) the Court reasoned that the duty of the police is to the public, generally, and not to any specific individual in any particular circumstance. The Court saw a real problem with the notion that the police, and not the individual, had the duty to defend the individual against crime. They felt, and were justified in doing so, that not only does this place an unreasonable burden on the police, who would then have the obligation of putting themselves (as individuals) at risk of death or injury or suffer legal consequences, which conflicts with the general theory that each individual is responsible for his or her own safety, and that others cannot be REQUIRED to come to the aid of someone in need or danger if doing so puts them at risk of death or injury.

This would cause the government to force people to assume risks that they may not be willing to assume, and this applies just as much to police officers, who have a right to go home healthy at the end of their shift, as it does to anyone else.

I think we have a fairly similar system in practice here, as police officers would not be required to unreasonably put their own lives/health at risk to save someone... though many might choose to do so to greater or lesser degrees.

[Seth]

So what do they get paid so much for again if they are under no obligation to endanger themselves to uphold the law?

They don't get paid all that much, I'm afraid, for the risks they DO take.

[Seth]

Y

And in most departments, standing by watching someone being attacked would get the officer fired or suspended, and would likely bring much opprobrium upon him or her by his fellow officers, but at the same time, most police officers understand that there is no requirement that they throw away their lives in a display of bravado.

That wasn't the issue in the case you reported, though, Seth, which was the kidnapping of three children by a lone man. As I read it, the Supreme Court aren't using danger to the police as a reason for their inaction, but simply what they call "police discretion regarding mandatory arrest statutes". I personally find the dissenting opinions of Justices Stevens and Ginsburg more soundly based, and I wouldn't like to live in a society where such a crime was essentially ignored until too late.

True enough, in that particular case, but that is just one of several in which the underlying legal logic has been clarified by the Court.

There are both practical and ethical reasons for this policy.

[Seth]

Are sworn oaths not legally binding? - I thought they were.

Nope. Well, it depends on what you're swearing to do and where. If you give an oath to tell the truth in court, then you can be held legally liable for not doing so, but a generalized oath to "uphold the law" of the nation or community generally does not contain a "regardless of the risk to my personal life and safety" clause, and such formalities are not actually legally enforceable in and of themselves, although they may be cause for dismissal from the force.

There is no crime of "oathbreaking" these days, though I sometimes think there should be.